this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
110 points (73.9% liked)

Lemmy

12538 readers
6 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It was banned on Reddit because it is racist, hatefull and spread Conspiracies.

In my new community I expect the exclution of racist communities. It is easy now with defederation. Nazis can do whatever they want on their instances, but the instances I want to be part of should not amplify their shit and flush it into our timelines.

The instance-admin of !thedonald@sh.itjust.works did not reply to my message. Big instances seem not to defederate with them.

The new TD may not be a success, the point is not to give Nazis a platform like it is happening now. Fans of TD are racists.

Where are the instances that show face against racism?

edit: to contact the admins: @donut @TheDude @smorks

edit2: @TheDude deleted the community :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rist097@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Well I think that is strength of Lemmy, everyone can have space on their own without anyone shutting them down, of course if crimes are commited this is a question for law authorities. If you don't want to see their content, you can either defederate or block their community.

I really don't understand this thinking that you cannot tolerate people with different opinion than yours to exist on the internet. Again if they break any laws, you can report it to authorities.

[–] ThePrideOfGoffamCity@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everybody likes to preach tolerance to all, until they run into somebody who’s actually different from them

[–] uptoke@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The Paradox of Tolerance as defined by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

load more comments (1 replies)